DOCSLIB.ORG

Regulation of the Treaty-Making Process 1

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Regulation of the Treaty-Making Process 1 EXPRESSION OF CONSENT BY STATES TO BE BOUND BY A TREATY 2 Table of Contents Foreword by the Secretary General of the Council of Europe Introduction PART I – ANALYTICAL REPORT Introduction Section I – Regulation of the treaty-making process 1. The negotiating process a. Capacity b. Authority to represent the state c. Adoption and authentication of the text 2. Consent to be bound a. Signature b. Exchange of instruments c. Ratification d. Acceptance and approval e. Accession 3. Reservations 4. Provisional application 5. Implementation Section II – National regulation of treaty-making at the international level 1. Comparison of how states express their consent at the International level a. Consent to be bound expressed by the head of state b. Shared competence between the head of state and the government c. Treaty-making as part of royal prerogative d. Treaty-making as a government function e. Competence of federal or territorial units 2. Negotiation process a. Negotiations formally assigned to the head of state b. Negotiations as a government function c. The enhanced role of the Minister for Foreign Affairs d. The role of federal or regional units 3 Section III – Domestic legal processes governing the conclusion of treaties 1. Analysis of municipal legal sources 2. The involvement of different state organs a. The role of the executive i. Heads of state a) Monarchies b) Presidential powers of veto c) Other systems ii. The government a) Westminster tradition b) Governmental control of the domestic legal process c) More limited involvement of government in conclusion of treaties iii. Ministry of Foreign Affairs iv. Other ministries b. The role of the parliament i. Informal powers (information or consultation) a) The Westminster tradition b) Right to information c) Consultation duties reinforcing parliamentary scrutiny ii. Approval a) Approval as an exception or as the rule – different constitutional approaches i. Constitutions defining the situations in which consent is required ii. Constitutions with a general approval requirement b) Majority requirements c. Plebiscite i. Express referenda requirements in respect of treaties ii. General powers to consult the electorate d. Special functions of constituent units of federal states, provinces and dependent territories i. Constituent units of federations ii. Provinces and regions iii. Dependent territories 4 Section IV – Reservations and declarations 1. Executive competence 2. Involvement of the parliament a. Consultation and information b. Approval procedure c. Powers of initiative d. Conditioned approval Section V – Provisional application 1. Legal systems in which provisional application is generally permissible 2. Provisional application subject to the rules of domestic law 3. Provisional application generally excluded Section VI – The place of treaties in domestic law 1. Forms of incorporation a. Automatic integration b. Formal incorporation c. Substantive incorporation 2. Self-executing treaties 3. Direct applicability 4. Hierarchy of norms a. Constitutional rank b. Superior to legislation c. Ordinary legislation Conclusion 5 PART II – COUNTRY REPORTS Albania Andorra Austria Azerbaijan Belgium Bulgaria Croatia Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Georgia Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Italy Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” Romania Russian Federation San Marino Slovak Republic Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey Ukraine United Kingdom Observers Bosnia and Herzegovina Canada Israel Japan Mexico 6 APPENDICES 1. Questionnaire on expression of consent by states to be bound by a treaty 2. Vienna Convention on the Law of the Treaties 3. State of signatures and ratifications of the Vienna Convention 7 Foreword Treaty-making constitutes the very basis of the international legal order and influences international relations. It channels the expression by states of consent to be bound and defines the commitments they enter into. However, the national procedures by which states express their consent to be bound vary considerably, depending on constitutional, legal and political conditions which reflect the history of each country. The following report, drawn up under the aegis of the Committee of Legal Advisers on Public International Law (CAHDI) of the Council of Europe, encompasses the practice of forty member States of this Organisation and a number of Observer states. It provides comprehensive and up-to-date information about these states’ means of expressing consent to be bound by a treaty. Furthermore, the analysis commissioned by the CAHDI from the British Institute of International and Comparative Law casts fresh light on this matter by inferring interesting considerations from the diversity of national procedures. This report illustrates once again the key role of the CAHDI in the intergovernmental structures of the Council of Europe as the only forum where the legal advisers of the forty-three member states and a significant number of Observer states and international organisations can exchange and possibly co-ordinate their views on issues of public international law. With this report, the Council of Europe wishes to pursue its practical contribution to the development of international law, facilitating the mutual understanding of its member States and thus, helping to build a stable and peaceful international community. Walter Schwimmer Secretary General of the Council of Europe 8 Introduction In 1986 the Committee of Experts on Public International Law (CJ-DI) of the Council of Europe, predecessor of the Committee of Legal Advisers on Public International Law (CAHDI), operating under the aegis of the European Committee on Legal Co-operation (CDCJ), prepared a report on the means by which states consent to be bound by a treaty and national procedures relating thereto. This report included contributions by nineteen member states of the Council of Europe and three Observer states of the committee. It was published by the Council of Europe in 1987 and since then has been of great use to researchers, scholars and governmental delegations. Thirteen years after its publication, national procedures of some member states have changed considerably and the membership of the Council of Europe has increased almost twofold. Therefore, the CAHDI decided at its 17th meeting (Vienna, 8-9 March 1999) to undertake the preparation of a new report with up-to-date information about the means by which the member states of the Council of Europe express their consent to be bound by a treaty. On the basis of a questionnaire adopted by the CAHDI, forty member states of the Council of Europe provided contributions regarding their national situation. These are Albania, Andorra, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, Romania, Russian Federation, San Marino, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine and the United Kingdom. In addition, five Observer states of the CAHDI also provided contributions, namely: Canada, Israel, Japan, Mexico and Bosnia and Herzegovina. On the basis of the information gathered, at its 19th meeting (Berlin, 13-14 March 2000) the CAHDI commissioned the preparation of an analytical report to the British Institute of International and Comparative Law. This analytical report appears in Part I of this publication and the national contributions in Part II. The publication is completed with various documentary appendices including the questionnaire, which served as a basis for the preparation of the country reports, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and the state of signatures and ratification of this convention. This report therefore constitutes a comprehensive source of information on how states approach treaty-making and covers every step and aspect of the process relating thereto. Part I on the Analytical report deals in separate sections with: (I) Regulation of the treaty- making process; (II) The National regulation of treaty-making at international level; (III) The domestic legal processes governing the conclusion of treaties; (IV) Reservations and declarations to international treaties; (V) Provisional application; and (VI) The place of treaties in domestic law. This analysis of the information gathered by the CAHDI is followed by an overall conclusion summarising the main findings. It should be noted that the views expressed in this part of the publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position of individual states or of the CAHDI as a whole with regard to the procedures, facts and situations referred to therein. 9 Part II on Country reports, includes the contributions provided by states and covers thoroughly the national procedures relating to the expression of consent to be bound by a treaty, including the authorities vested with the treaty-making power and competent to authorise negotiations, and the procedures relating thereto. They describe in detail the applicable national procedures, including the distinction between signature, subject or not to ratification, acceptance and approval, the cases to which these modalities apply and the steps leading to the decision to bind the state. They further deal with reservations to international
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Nebraska Unicameral and Its Lasting Benefits, 76 Neb
    Nebraska Law Review Volume 76 | Issue 4 Article 6 1997 The eN braska Unicameral and Its Lasting Benefits Kim Robak Nebraska Lieutenant Governor Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr Recommended Citation Kim Robak, The Nebraska Unicameral and Its Lasting Benefits, 76 Neb. L. Rev. (1997) Available at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr/vol76/iss4/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law, College of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Nebraska Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Kim Robak* The Nebraska Unicameral and Its Lasting Benefits TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction .......................................... 791 II. Background ........................................... 793 III. Why and How the Unicameral Works ................. 799 A. Organization ...................................... 800 B. Process ........................................... 802 C. Partisanship ...................................... 804 D. The Lobby ........................................ 804 IV. Why a Nonpartisan Unicameral Is Superior to a Bicameral System ..................................... 805 A. Duplication ....................................... 805 B. Representative and Open Process .................. 809 C. Nonpartisanship .................................. 810 D. Leadership ........................................ 812 E. Lobby ............................................. 814 F. Balance
    [Show full text]
  • Internationale Übereinkünfte
    7.3.2014 DE Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 68/1 II (Rechtsakte ohne Gesetzescharakter) INTERNATIONALE ÜBEREINKÜNFTE BESCHLUSS DES RATES vom 2. Dezember 2013 über den Abschluss des Protokolls zur Änderung des Übereinkommens über das öffentliche Beschaffungswesen (2014/115/EU) DER RAT DER EUROPÄISCHEN UNION — HAT FOLGENDEN BESCHLUSS ERLASSEN: gestützt auf den Vertrag über die Arbeitsweise der Europäischen Artikel 1 Union, insbesondere auf Artikel 207 Absatz 4 Unterabsatz 1 in Verbindung mit Artikel 218 Absatz 6 Buchstabe a Ziffer v, Das Protokoll zur Änderung des Übereinkommens über das öffentliche Beschaffungswesen wird hiermit im Namen der Eu­ auf Vorschlag der Europäischen Kommission, ropäischen Union genehmigt. nach Zustimmung des Europäischen Parlaments, Der Wortlaut des Protokolls ist diesem Beschluss beigefügt. in Erwägung nachstehender Gründe: Artikel 2 Der Präsident des Rates wird die Person(en) bestellen, die befugt (1) Nach Maßgabe des Artikels XXIV Absatz 7 Buchstaben b ist (sind), im Namen der Union die Annahmeurkunde gemäß und c des WTO-Übereinkommens über das öffentliche Absatz 3 des Protokolls und im Einklang mit Artikel XXIV Beschaffungswesen (Government Procurement Agreement — Absatz 9 des GPA von 1994 zu hinterlegen, um die Zustim­ GPA von 1994) wurden im Januar 1999 Verhandlungen mung der Union, durch das Protokoll gebunden zu sein, zum über die Überarbeitung des GPA von 1994 eingeleitet. Ausdruck zu bringen ( 1 ). (2) Die Verhandlungen wurden von der Kommission in Ab­ stimmung mit dem nach Artikel 207 Absatz 3 des Ver­ Artikel 3 trags über die Arbeitsweise der Europäischen Union ein­ Das Protokoll ist dahingehend auszulegen, dass es keine Rechte gerichteten Besonderen Ausschuss geführt. oder Pflichten begründet, die vor den Gerichten der Union oder der Mitgliedstaaten unmittelbar geltend gemacht werden kön­ (3) Am 15.
    [Show full text]
  • Evidence: the Role of National Parliaments in the European Union
    EUROPEAN UNION SELECT COMMITTEE The Role of National Parliaments in the European Union Oral and Written evidence Contents Dr Gavin Barrett, University College Dublin—Written evidence .................................................. 4 Professor Dr iur. Hermann-Josef Blanke, University of Erfurt, Germany—Written evidence . 7 Mr Mladen Cherveniakov, Chairman of the Committee on European Affairs and Oversight of the European Funds, National Assembly of Bulgaria—Written evidence ................................... 13 Mr Carlo Casini MEP and Mr Miguel Angel Martínez Martínez MEP, Vice-President, European Parliament—(QQ 125-136) ................................................................................................................... 15 Sonia Piedrafita, Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS)—Written evidence ................... 16 Charles Grant, Director, Centre for European Reform, and Mats Persson, Director, Open Europe—Oral evidence (QQ 1-17) ..................................................................................................... 23 Dr iur Patricia Conlan, Member, Institute for the Study of Knowledge in Society, University of Limerick, Ireland—Written evidence ............................................................................................. 41 Dr Ian Cooper, University of Oslo—Written evidence ................................................................. 56 Dr Richard Corbett, Member of the Cabinet of the President, European Council—Written evidence .....................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Het Koninkrijk Tegen Het Licht
    Het Koninkrijk tegen het licht Rechtsvergelijkend onderzoek in opdracht van de Tweede Kamer der Staten- Generaal naar de staatsrechtelijke overzeese verhoudingen in het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden, de Franse Republiek, het Koninkrijk Denemarken en het Verenigd Koninkrijk van Groot-Brittannië en Noord-Ierland prof. mr. H.G. Hoogers mr. G. Karapetian april 2019 INHOUDSOPGAVE Inleiding en aanleiding tot het onderzoek 3 Hoofdstuk 1 Het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden 7 §1. Inleiding 7 §2. Een smalle rechtsband 8 §3. Democratische vertegenwoordiging 9 §4. Sociaaleconomische verhoudingen 10 §5. Financiën 11 §6. Defensie en openbare orde 11 §7. De beslechting van geschillen 13 Hoofdstuk 2 De Franse Republiek 16 §1. Inleiding 16 §2. Les collectivités territoriales: DrOM, COM en Nieuw-Caledonië 17 §3. Democratische vertegenwoordiging 21 §4. Sociaaleconomische verhouding en financiën 22 §5. Defensie en openbare orde 23 §6. De beslechting van geschillen 23 §7. Conclusie 24 Hoofdstuk 3 Het Koninkrijk Denemarken 25 §1. Inleiding; de structuur van het Deense Rijk 25 §2. De rechtsband tussen Denemarken en de beide andere Rijksdelen 29 §3. Democratische vertegenwoordiging 30 §4. Sociaaleconomische verhoudingen 31 §5. Financiën en openbare orde 31 §6. Defensie 31 §7. De beslechting van geschillen 32 §8. Conclusie 33 Hoofdstuk 4 Het Verenigd Koninkrijk van Groot-Brittannië en Noord-Ierland 35 §1. Inleiding 35 §2. Veertien Constituties voor veertien British Overseas Territories 37 §3. Democratische vertegenwoordiging 39 §4. Sociaaleconomische verhouding en financiën 41 §5. Defensie en openbare orde 42 §6. De beslechting van geschillen 42 §7. Conclusie 43 Hoofdstuk 5. Conclusies 44 §1. De structuur van de staatkundige relaties 44 §2. Democratische vertegenwoordiging 46 §3.
    [Show full text]
  • Factsheet: the Austrian Federal Council
    Directorate-General for the Presidency Directorate for Relations with National Parliaments Factsheet: The Austrian Federal Council 1. At a glance Austria is a federal republic and a parliamentary democracy. The Austrian Parliament is a bicameral body composed of the National Council (Nationalrat) and the Federal Council (Bundesrat). The 61 Members of the Federal Council are delegated by the nine regional parliaments (Landtage) and represent the interests of the regions (Länder) in the federal legislative process. They need not necessarily be Members of the regional parliament that delegates them, but they must in principle be eligible to run for elections in that region. The overall number of Members of the Federal Council is linked to the population size of the regions. The biggest region delegates twelve, the smallest at least three members. The Presidency of the Federal Council rotates every six months between the nine regions in alphabetic order. It is awarded to the Federal Council Member who heads the list of Members established by her or his region. In most cases, the National Council issues federal legislation in conjunction with the Federal Council. However, with some rare exceptions the Federal Council only has a so-called “suspensive” veto right. The National Council can override a challenge by the Federal Council to one of its resolutions by voting on the resolution again. 2. Composition Composition of the Austrian Federal Council Party EP affiliation Seats Österreichische Volkspartei (ÖVP) Austrian People's Party 25 Sozialdemokratische Partei Österreichs (SPÖ) Social Democratic Party of Austria 19 Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs (FPÖ) Freedom Party of Austria 11 Die Grünen 5 The Greens NEOS 1 61 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Professional and Ethical Standards for Parliamentarians Background Study: Professional and Ethical Standards for Parliamentarians
    Background Study: Professional and Ethical Standards for Parliamentarians Background Study: Professional and Ethical Standards for Parliamentarians Warsaw, 2012 Published by the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) Ul. Miodowa 10, 00–251 Warsaw, Poland http://www.osce.org/odihr © OSCE/ODIHR 2012, ISBN 978–92–9234–844–1 All rights reserved. The contents of this publication may be freely used and copied for educational and other non-commercial purposes, provided that any such reproduction is accompanied by an acknowledgement of the OSCE/ODIHR as the source. Designed by Homework Cover photo of the Hungarian Parliament Building by www.heatheronhertravels.com. Printed by AGENCJA KARO Table of contents Foreword 5 Executive Summary 8 Part One: Preparing to Reform Parliamentary Ethical Standards 13 1.1 Reasons to Regulate Conduct 13 1.2 The Limits of Regulation: Private Life 19 1.3 Immunity for Parliamentarians 20 1.4 The Context for Reform 25 Part Two: Tools for Reforming Ethical Standards 31 2.1 A Code of Conduct 34 2.2 Drafting a Code 38 2.3 Assets and Interests 43 2.4 Allowances, Expenses and Parliamentary Resources 49 2.5 Relations with Lobbyists 51 2.6 Other Areas that may Require Regulation 53 Part Three: Monitoring and Enforcement 60 3.1 Making a Complaint 62 3.2 Investigating Complaints 62 3.3 Penalties for Misconduct 69 3.4 Administrative Costs 71 3.5 Encouraging Compliance 72 3.6 Updating and Reviewing Standards 75 Conclusions 76 Glossary 79 Select Bibliography 81 Foreword The public accountability and political credibility of Parliaments are cornerstone principles, to which all OSCE participating States have subscribed.
    [Show full text]
  • Tekst Zrewidowanego Porozumienia
    ISSN 1977-0766 Dziennik Urzędowy L 68 Unii Europejskiej Tom 57 Wydanie polskie Legislacja 7 marca 2014 Spis treści II Akty o charakterze nieustawodawczym UMOWY MIĘDZYNARODOWE 2014/115/UE: ★ Decyzja Rady z dnia 2 grudnia 2013 r. dotycząca zawarcia Protokołu zmieniającego Porozu­ mienie w sprawie zamówień rządowych . 1 Protokół zmieniający Porozumienie w sprawie zamówień rządowych . 2 Cena: 10 EUR Akty, których tytuły wydrukowano zwykłą czcionką, odnoszą się do bieżącego zarządzania sprawami rolnictwa i generalnie zachowują ważność przez określony czas. Tytuły wszystkich innych aktów poprzedza gwiazdka, a drukuje się je czcionką pogrubioną. PL 7.3.2014 PL Dziennik Urzędowy Unii Europejskiej L 68/1 II (Akty o charakterze nieustawodawczym) UMOWY MIĘDZYNARODOWE DECYZJA RADY z dnia 2 grudnia 2013 r. dotycząca zawarcia Protokołu zmieniającego Porozumienie w sprawie zamówień rządowych (2014/115/UE) RADA UNII EUROPEJSKIEJ, PRZYJMUJE NINIEJSZĄ DECYZJĘ: uwzględniając Traktat o funkcjonowaniu Unii Europejskiej, Artykuł 1 w szczególności jego art. 207 ust. 4 akapit pierwszy w związku z art. 218 ust. 6 lit. a) ppkt (v), Protokół zmieniający Porozumienie w sprawie zamówień rządo­ wych zostaje niniejszym zatwierdzony w imieniu Unii Europej­ skiej. uwzględniając wniosek Komisji Europejskiej, Tekst Protokołu jest załączony do niniejszej decyzji. uwzględniając zgodę Parlamentu Europejskiego, Artykuł 2 a także mając na uwadze, co następuje: Przewodniczący Rady wyznacza osobę lub osoby umocowane do złożenia instrumentu akceptacji w imieniu Unii, jak okre­ (1) Negocjacje dotyczące rewizji Porozumienia w sprawie ślono w ust. 3 Protokołu oraz zgodnie z art. XXIV ust. 9 GPA zamówień rządowych (w ramach GPA z 1994 r.) zostały z 1994 r., w celu wyrażenia zgody Unii Europejskiej na zwią­ zainicjowane w styczniu 1999 r.
    [Show full text]
  • Act on the Autonomy of Åland (1991/1144)
    Act on the Autonomy of Åland (1991/1144) The war of 1808-09 resulted in Sweden being forced to relinquish Finland and the Åland Islands to Russia, whereby Swedish-speaking Åland became part of the Grand Duchy of Finland. When Finland gained its independence, the Ålanders began to hope for reunion with Sweden. Consequently the Parliament of Finland adopted an Autonomy Act for Åland in 1920. At first the Ålanders refused to accept it, and the question of Åland's status was referred to the League of Nations. In June 1921 the Council of the League of Nations reached a decision that Finland should receive sovereignty over the Åland Islands. Finland undertook to guarantee the population of Åland its Swedish language, culture and local customs. The Council of the League of Nations also prescribed that an international agreement should be made confirming the demilitarization of the Ålands Islands from 1856 and expanding it to include neutralization. The Autonomy Act was supplemented in conformity with the decisions of the Council of the League of Nations, and the Ålanders started applying the Act. The first election to the Åland Parliament was held in 1922. The Autonomy Act from 1920 soon proved inadequate and was replaced in 1951 by another Act, which also became outdated. After almost 20 years of preparations the present Act on the Autonomy of Åland has been passed by the Parliament of Finland in constitutional order and with assent of the Åland Parliament. The Act entered into force on 1 January 1993. Please note: This is an unofficial translation.
    [Show full text]
  • Legal Foundations, Structures and Institutions of Autonomy in Comparative Law
    Legal Foundations, Structures and Institutions of Autonomy in Comparative Law Markku Suksi 1 Introduction Autonomies around the world1 as a form of organization at the sub-national level show a number of common features or dimensions that offer a basis for comparisons. The comparisons, in turn, can be used for the purposes of explaining the legal effects of various forms of autonomy and for outlining the reasons for differences and similarities. What are the key features of autonomy, how could different autonomies be compared with each other and what is the future of autonomy as a form of organization? How could the different autonomies and their relations to each other be illustrated in the visual form, as a chart, so as to make it possible to identify the mul- titude of different models of autonomy on the basis of their normative features? For such a comparative exercise to take place, a common framework or platform of comparison should be designed. In other words, a so-called tertium comparationis should be developed. For the purposes of our discussion of autonomy, it is proposed that this tertium comparationis is created against the background of the right to participation in a broad sense, encompassing both the general right to participation as identified in article 25 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on the one hand and the right to self-determination as a meta-right of participation as pointed at in article 1 of the same Covenant. 2 Participation and Self-Determination Article 25 of the CCPR deals with participation and covers participation not only at the national level but also at the sub-national and local government level.
    [Show full text]
  • The European Union, Its Overseas Territories and Non-Proliferation: the Case of Arctic Yellowcake
    eU NoN-ProliferatioN CoNsortiUm The European network of independent non-proliferation think tanks NoN-ProliferatioN PaPers No. 25 January 2013 THE EUROPEAN UNION, ITS OVERSEAS TERRITORIES AND NON-PROLIFERATION: THE CASE OF ARCTIC YELLOWCAKE cindy vestergaard I. INTRODUCTION SUMMARY There are 26 countries and territories—mainly The European Union (EU) Strategy against Proliferation of small islands—outside of mainland Europe that Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD Strategy) has been have constitutional ties with a European Union applied unevenly across EU third-party arrangements, (EU) member state—either Denmark, France, the hampering the EU’s ability to mainstream its non- proliferation policies within and outside of its borders. Netherlands or the United Kingdom.1 Historically, This inconsistency is visible in the EU’s current approach since the establishment of the Communities in 1957, to modernizing the framework for association with its the EU’s relations with these overseas countries and overseas countries and territories (OCTs). territories (OCTs) have focused on classic development The EU–OCT relationship is shifting as these islands needs. However, the approach has been changing over grapple with climate change and a drive toward sustainable the past decade to a principle of partnership focused and inclusive development within a globalized economy. on sustainable development and global issues such While they are not considered islands of proliferation as poverty eradication, climate change, democracy, concern, effective non-proliferation has yet to make it to human rights and good governance. Nevertheless, their shores. Including EU non-proliferation principles is this new and enhanced partnership has yet to address therefore a necessary component of modernizing the EU– the EU’s non-proliferation principles and objectives OCT relationship.
    [Show full text]
  • DISSENTING OPINION of JUDGE PETRÉN [Translation ] to My Regret, 1 Have Felt Obliged to Vote Against the Judgment and to Append This Dissenting Opinion
    DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE PETRÉN [Translation ] To my regret, 1 have felt obliged to vote against the Judgment and to append this dissenting opinion. The main reason why L felt unable to vote for the Judgment lay in the broad constructiori placed by the Court on the agreement concluded between the Parties by their 1961 Exchange of Notes, which constitutes the sole basis of the Court's jurisdiction to deal with the present case. In that respect 1, like my colleague Judge Ignacio-Pinto, share the view expressed by our colleagues Judges Gros and Onyeama in their dissenting opinions, to which 1 may therefore refer the reader. 1 need here Say no more than that the only question upon which the 1961 agreement entitles the Court to adjudikate is whether a measure whereby Iceland extends its zone of exclusive fisheries jurisdiction beyond a distance of 12 nautical miles froni the bas~clinesof its territorial waters is well founded in inter- national law. Certain passages of the Judgment appear to partake of the notion that the disputed extension by lceland of its fishery zone from the 12-mile to the 50-rnile limit is without foundation in international law. Thus paragraph 53 of the Judgment, after alluding to the contemporary tendencies of a nunlber of States to extend their fishery zones beyond the 12-mile limit, concludes by observing that "the Court, as a court of law, cannot render judgment sub sperie Iegis,ferendae, or anticipate the law before the legislator has laid it down". Paragraph 67 reflects the same attitude even more iclearly, for it States that "lceland's unilateral action .
    [Show full text]
  • Austrian Stability Programme
    Austrian Stability Programme Technical update for the period to Vienna, April Contents Introduction ...................................................................................................... Economic Situation in Austria ............................................................................. Economic development (-) ........................................................................ . COVID-: Qualitative description of economic policy measures and their effects ...... Budgetary development ( to ) ............................................................. . Budget implementation in ............................................................................. Budget .......................................................................................................... Development of public budgets in .................................................................. Assessment with respect to -. % GDP growth in ........................................... Excursus: COVID- effects on the structural budget balance .................................. Annex ............................................................................................................. Tables ................................................................................................................ Figures ............................................................................................................... Literature and sources ........................................................................................
    [Show full text]